Just curious what logic was used by our local reviewers.. some of us had geocaches that were disabled because they were tagged as Needing Maintenance. I had one cache that NM which I unfortunately wasn't aware of. It was disabled, and rightfully so. I am not debating that. But I am wondering what logic was used? Here's an instance of a cache that's had NM since August of last year and the cache owner hasn't logged in for months prior to that even. The Cache.

My cache DID need maintenance and it should have been taken care of. However, there are many other caches (and cachers) that need far more attention.

Since this is being brought up here, I can answer some questions publicly.

Right now I am going through caches that are flagged with the Needs Maintenance (NM) attribute one at a time and reading logs.

Generally speaking, they fall into 3 groups:

1) Caches with serious issues that have not been unattended to by the owner. Many, but not all of these, are disabled with a note asking the CO to repair their cache or it will be archived in 30 days. If they need more time or something else, all they need to do is post a note to the cache page. I will say that 99% of the caches that are disabled pending an owner's response or repair, a response is not posted and they are archived. My estimate is that only about 5% have been disabled.

2) Caches with the NM flag, but the issue is not affecting cache quality or findability. In these cases, after reading numerous logs to see if the issue has persisted over time, I am posting a Reviewer Note asking the CO to either attend to the maintenance issue or post a note that the issue has been already taken care of. Many cases the issue has been resolved but the CO never posted a "Owner Maintenance" log and the flag is still present. The note I post is a 'gentile reminder' with instructions on how to remove the MN flag. Please take it that way.

3) Caches that have very old NM flags posted. For these I am again reading numerous logs to see what is going on. If things appear to have been taken care of a long time ago, resolved on there own (log dried out on it's own), or the community helped out, I am going in and removing the NM flag. The typically happens in about 50% of the caches I look at.

I can assure you that many people are running PQ's that exclude caches with the NM flag set.

When I ran the first PQ a week ago, there were somewhere in excess of 2,200 active caches in Minnesota with the NM flag set. It's going to take me a long time. Today's PQ was down to 1800. A very high percentage of the caches I posted Reviewer Notes to had been attended to. To that, I feel this has been a success so far.

To answer bfjente's question about a specific cache, I just haven't gotten to that one yet. (see above)

Be assured, that my intention is to improve the caching experience in Minnesota by looking into these NM flags. Do you like finding caches with soggy logs and missing containers?

If you would prefer that I didn't do a sweep of caches with NM flags in MN, just say so. I can stop if that's what the community wants. It is very time consuming. This past week I have spent many hours reviewing hundreds of caches with the NM flag. It's time I am volunteering to the sport to help make it better for you.

If you have specific caches that have issues I should address earlier, please email me directly with the GC#. As you should be well aware of, I am very happy to work with you on cache related issues. I would prefer that things like that are communicated to me (gatrdoneMN@gmail.com) directly instead of on a public discussion forum. I have been monitoring the forums and FaceBook. No one has yet to come to me directly with a question.

Yes, when your cache gets a note (Disable of Reviewer Note) posted it's going to be a little shocking and maybe embarrassing.

Admittedly, I did start out rather randomly. I am now attempting to focus my review from the southern part of the state and work northward.

One final note: I am only human and sometimes make a mistake. If you see something that isn't correct, please email me directly and I will do my best to correct the situation.

Last edited by Gat R Done on Sun Mar 17, 2013 2:31 pm; edited 4 times in total

Actually appreciate it as you have removed a lot of dead wood right here in my area by your sweep. The ones in Winona had issues that needed to be taken care of and the owners just seem to have graduated college and moved on.

Caches with serious issues that have not been unattended to by the owner. Many, but not all of these, are disabled with a note asking the CO to repair their cache or it will be archived in 30 days.

Very nice work done by our reviewers to keep this game fun for everyone! My concern is the possibility of geo-trash accumulating when NM caches are archived and the CO is long gone. How is the best way to handle this? Local cachers taking it upon themselves to clean up after reviewer archival?

I appreciate all the time you put in, GatRDone. I currently have a cache with the NM attribute on because one person couldn't find it and decided that it must be missing. I assume that you will ignore that one. If it gets more dnf's I will check on it, but to log a NM after one dnf seems a little presumptuous to me.

The reviewers get a vote of support from me, too. I appreciate the work they do to give geocaching a good reputation. When trying to get permission from local entities, it helps that I can refer to the reviews which make sure that the caches meet certain standards and that they are maintained. I'd be willing to help remove any abandoned caches in my area if I could find them. Oh and I checked to see if any of my caches had an NM on them. Just in case I had forgotten something._________________Two roads diverged in a wood, and I-
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference. ~Robert Frost

Last edited by Aix sponsa on Sun Mar 17, 2013 11:19 pm; edited 1 time in total

a cache with the NM attribute on because one person couldn't find it and decided that it must be missing.

While every situation is different, if a NM log was posted for something like a missing pencil, new cacher's DNF, etc. that is not affecting the cache's quality and there are logs afterwards that indicate the cache is fine, posting an 'Owner Maintenance' log to remove that flag would be the right thing to do. Simply state "looks like the issue has been resolved" or something similar in the log .

Hey, I know one local cacher who NEVER puts a pencil in the caches he hides, and even brags about it in his descriptions. _________________"Hi, I'm Moe, or as the women know me - Hey! You in the bushes."
-Moe, The Simpsons